Yes indeed. It was the Bible and their Christian beliefs which were at the basis for the pro-slavery supporters' position, so it is at least interesting to get a window into the minds of people who lived in a different age.

Owning another human being relegates them to objects. Humans either have intrinsic value or they don't. Does Christianity propose that humans have no intrinsic value? From my own knowledge of Christianity, I would say that is not the current format of belief practiced by any Christian group in the world.

Owning another human being means a system is in place where you too could be owned. Do unto others, and you set the precedent to do unto you - would you like to be a slave? Would you like your wife or children, your mother or father to be enslaved?. Didn't Jesus have something to say about doing unto others?

Other individuals have the same right to freedom as you do. Any argument you make in support of your own freedom is an argument in support of theirs. Or does Christianity propose that humans don't have rights or freedoms?

Slavery caused endless suffering, beatings, rapes, murders and impoverished generations of people because of the colour of their skin, the content of their beliefs, or the fact that they were from that village over there which we beat up. Does Christianity support rape, murder, and physical violence?

Slavery is an aspect of our species' early juvenile morality where we lacked compassion for those outside our group. Slavery is an effect of racism, hatred, and xenophobia. Is Christianity in support of racism, hatred, and xenophobia?

Of course, as is the nature of religious 'holy texts', other people can read what they want into the words too.

As such, those opposing slavery would cite Luke 16:13, and writers of the day would argue against slavery from Christian or religious positions.

Bernhard.visscher wrote:One of the first things that comes to my mind is how slavery is defined today as to how it was defined in time past.

Which is irrelevant because by slavery we are talking about owning a human being, owning the output of their labours, and society having a distinct set of laws appropriate solely to the subset of humans termed 'slaves'.

Bernhard.visscher wrote:So please bring a definition of slavery so we can start with the same fact.

No. Your proposition - you perform the defining and see if others accept it.

Funny how in your own thread, created with your own volition, you feel the need to immediately try wriggling around in semantics.

Bernhard.visscher wrote:This thread is to identify the exact problem of slavery.

The bible allowed for slavery. This is a fact. Is the problem the violence associated with Slavery? The ownership of a fellow human?

Let's discuss.

It's both. It is morally reprehensible for a human being to own another as property, particularly in the case of biblical slavery which explicitly allows the beating to death of a slave as long as it happens over the course of at least a few days.

Sparhafoc wrote:by slavery we are talking about owning a human being, owning the output of their labours, and society having a distinct set of laws appropriate solely to the subset of humans termed 'slaves'.

Rumraket wrote:Slavery: the owning of another human being as if they were property. In the same way that a smartphone or a bicycle is property.

These have been definitions of slavery today as they were in the past.

I am baffled at how christians think that the definition of slavery somehow changed. Is slavery supposed to have meant something different then? Or something different now?

Is anyone suprised that this returning trollish christian would also be a slavery-apologist? No one? I thought so.

"Slavery is morally ok" - "I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" - Public information messages from the League of Reason's christians

The problem you are immediately getting into is comparing all ownership to Ill treating your property.

That is not the case.

One can own something and take very good care of it.

So I disagree with simply arguing ownership equals mistreatment.

No one argued that ownership equals mistreatment. Read again troll:

MarsCydonia wrote:

Sparhafoc wrote:by slavery we are talking about owning a human being, owning the output of their labours, and society having a distinct set of laws appropriate solely to the subset of humans termed 'slaves'.

Rumraket wrote:Slavery: the owning of another human being as if they were property. In the same way that a smartphone or a bicycle is property.

You're a slavery apologist so come out and say it:"Owning people as property is ok"

"Slavery is morally ok" - "I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" - Public information messages from the League of Reason's christians

Have you linked this thread to your Facebook profile yet? You should. Think about it! If your argumentation is correct, then all your Christian friends and family will be amazed by your perspicacity, and you'll receive the adulation for your ideas you're clearly so desperate to net.

Of course, if you realize that you're just playing the troll because there's no consequences to your action, it would explain why you'd be too gutless to stake your personal reputation on such vile beliefs.

Bernhard.visscher wrote:I do own my common law wife.... and she owns me.

How do I feel about that? No issue

I don't know which country you live in but I am convinced that you don't and that she doesn't.Certainly not in the legal sense of slavery.

Christians often try this false equivalence. Why don't you try "Sports team owner own their players" too?

Bernhard.visscher wrote:Again the implication of ownership is mistreatment. Owning in this context is simply you have authority over somebody.

Like the boss has authority over his employer. Does the boss own the employee? When at work.. yes.

The false equivalence again. My employer does not own me.

Nor is the implication of ownership mistreatment, you shot yourself in the foot there sparky. If the implication of ownwership is mistreatment and employers own employees, then the implication would be that employers can mistreat employees as the Israelites were permitted to treat their slaves. They can't. We have laws against that.

I really wish christian slavery apologist would try better. Is trying to pass slaves as employees really the best they can do?Why are they afraid to admit that they have no issue with slavery?

Bernhard.visscher wrote:The bible states one who kidnaps a human is to be put to death.

Rape ... punishable by death.

So when you define slavery in terms of kidnap, rape, and other unjustified violence... the bible condemns such slavery

Christians should really read their bible. Its just sad when they don't.1. Kidnapping isn't the same thing as slavery and the kidnapping that is punishable by death is the kidnapping of hebrews2. Rape isn't punishable by death. Rape of betrothed virgins is punishable by death. The unbetrothed virgins however? The rapist had to pay the father and then marry his victim.3. We've defined slavery as it always been defined and as it is defined in the bible:Owning another person as property.The bible doesn't condemn slavery, it condones it.

Lie better.

"Slavery is morally ok" - "I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" - Public information messages from the League of Reason's christians

Bernhard.visscher wrote:I do own my common law wife.... and she owns me.

Did you move back to that failed third world state again in between this and your post acknowledging that killing babies is not legal?

Bernhard.visscher wrote:How do I feel about that? No issue

And the question was: how do you feel about someone else OWNING her.

Whatever helps you sleep at night, I guess.

Now think about people owning your mother or sister

Still sleeping well?

If so, seek medical help.

Bernhard.visscher wrote:I don't have my own children. If I wasn't able to provide for them and a good man took them (adoption) ... I would again have no issue.

ADOPTION does not grant OWNERSHIP Bernie.

OWNERSHIP... right? You understand what OWNERSHIP means, right?

OWNERSHIP is not equivalent to being married, nor is it possessed by a parent. In none of these cases is OWNING relevant. Do you wish to seriously dispute this? How do you propose? By the laws of your nation, or by what Bernie makes up as he goes along?

Either you know you are equivocating in the most specious, sniveling way imaginable, or you are truly mystified.

Are you on prescription medication that suggests a side-effect could affect your behavior?

I am struggling to see what else could be happening here, but whatever it is - it's no more Christian than what I left in the toilet bowl earlier.

Bernhard.visscher wrote:The bible states one who kidnaps a human is to be put to death.

Rape ... punishable by death.

So when you define slavery in terms of kidnap, rape, and other unjustified violence... the bible condemns such slavery

And to debunk this sentence by sentence.

The Bible states a lot of things which aren't realistic anymore, like women being second class cosmic citizens in the diving Chain of Being.

Rape is not punishable by death in any of the traditionally Christian countries, and rape never was punishable by death in any Christian country of the last 2000 years so long as you were of the nobility. Religion and power often work hand in hand like that.

I did not define slavery in terms of kidnap, rape, and other unjustified violence - you made that argument, not me.

Where did I say that slavery is defined by rape or other unjustified violence, I said that rape and unjustified violence follows as a RESULT of slavery.

Incidentally, this is because humans are largely selfish and up their own arses and just want to get as much good shit for themselves as they can within the systems in play in their society and time. Thus, Christian Kings and nobles had the droit de seigneur where the powerful lords got to fuck the female peasantry on their wedding nights, justified according to them by Christian scripture. Vile people always will interpret vile things in scripture regardless - whether they be Muslim whackjobs or Christian ones.This is the shell game of belief, the destruction of the myth of homogeneity of religion.

I think it's funny that you added 'kidnapping' even though no one here has used it.

What's funny is that you must be thinking of the same verse from the Bible as me!

What's downright perverse is that you want to talk about that verse, because you've spent ages in onanistic solitude refining an argument to address it. You are a very disturbed chap.

Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

Is this what sets your pants on fire for a discussion about slavery, Bernie? Can you imagine capturing yourself a prepubescent girl, murdering her family, and then taking her all for yourself? I bet you think you'd be real nice to her, don't you Bernie? /shudder

Bernhard.visscher wrote:I already answered sparahoc... no yes no no no

Grand.

Then humans can't be relegated to the same status as objects, Jesus did expressly command to do unto others as you would have done unto you, that slaves should have the same rights and freedoms as other humans, that the effects of slavery are heinous, and that racism, hatred, and xenophobia is contrary to the alleged God's intent.

Ergo, you can't actually be a Christian if you maintain the opposite.

So either you're not actually a Christian (rather, a pretend one who's trying to make Christianity look stupid), or you're nothing remotely Christ-like and therefore don't qualify to speak as a Christian or to have anyone believe that anything you blabber about is representative of Christianity.

You're just a sad little man who hides behind his beliefs because he lacks the honesty to face up to his own nature.

Bernhard.visscher wrote:I am simply stating that the way slavery is represented today... kidnapped, forced to work, beaten, killed, shackled, sold on open market, forced into ship holds.... I don't agree with either.

What I am saying is bible does not paint that picture of slavery.

Have anyone of us changed the definitions since this thread started?

Sparhafoc wrote:by slavery we are talking about owning a human being, owning the output of their labours, and society having a distinct set of laws appropriate solely to the subset of humans termed 'slaves'.

Rumraket wrote:Slavery: the owning of another human being as if they were property. In the same way that a smartphone or a bicycle is property.

No, it seems that slavery as it was then is still slavery as it is today.

And it's nice to see that you do not agree with "forced to work, beaten, killed, sold on an open market".

Unfortunately for you, you'll have to lie to yourself, and probably will lie to us, that the bible does not condone these things. It does.

Bernhard.visscher wrote:

Sparhafoc wrote:So this supposed Christian declares that his wife is no different than his bicycle.

He owns her.

He could sell her.

He could transfer her as property.

He could trade her.

He could give her as a gift.

He could profit exclusively from her labor.

He could offer her as a commodity against damages.

She could be won in a bet.

She will be inherited upon her owner's death.

A will is made in order to formalize who next owns her.

Oh well, Bernie. If she does become enslaved by someone, I guess you can just buy a new one, eh?

And that's how people view ownership... and that is complete misrepresentation of bible.

Bernhard.visscher wrote:Of course you win .... I have no problem with that. I already know that today slavery is considered wrong. That is the common accepted belief of today.

I am simply stating that the way slavery is represented today... kidnapped, forced to work, beaten, killed, shackled, sold on open market, forced into ship holds.... I don't agree with either.

What I am saying is bible does not paint that picture of slavery.

I don't give two hoots about anything you want to equivocate about.

Either

1) You want to argue that the Bible has some special definition of slavery which means that they weren't REALLY slaves, they weren't REALLY OWNED PROPERTY and so on and so on, and just like all your bot like fellows before you, you're going to go and copy and paste segments from WLC that we've all seen before.

In reality, if your Bible needs special pleading, then you've lost that argument too - you, a supposed Christian, has just shown how Christians will lie to fill in problems with the actual words written in their holy scripture.

What's funny is that this is exactly what the rabid right complain about Muslims doing - unable to have a reformation, locked into these solitary interpretations where every word must be more right than even the measurement of right.

It's an insanity, Bernie. I don't give a flying fuck what you need to tell yourself to sleep well at night - I don't need to accept your ad hoc arguments to rationalize or explain away violence, raping, murdering and slavery in the Bible, because I don't believe it's the word of God.

To me, it's an historical window into the minds of our ancient predecessors and how they processed the world both natural and human, but the scene is a sad, barbaric, violent one for the most part, more commonly seen in places like tribal Afghanistan today.

And you have no excuse whatsoever to believe in the same way as these ancient fools - they had no way of knowing how wrong they were. To achieve that today in the society you grew up in, you've got to be willfully stupid and blind.

Bernhard.visscher wrote:Now seeing your answer to what ownership means... I can understand why you think what you do.

Wow.

I can sell my wife? Bible says what God has joined let no man part. Biblically not allowed

Then you need to shut your flap trap and start paying attention because your English isn't as good as you think it is.

Ownership has a very specific meaning, and if you're mistranslating it into Dutch, then you're missing the entire point.

Ownership is one of the foundations of human urban society. It really is why urban human society exists at all, because there are rules in place to keep the product of my labors mine.

It IS wealth. Money is just a token to represent it.

If you could have your wealth taken away from you at any point without recourse, that would be both terribly unjust and would demotivate you as a human being. What would be the point at all in performing these labors if the product keeps getting taken away?

Slavery is that but forever and always, sometimes you can be born into slavery, give birth to a slave, and have multiple generations of your slave family around you.

Do not try to escape this any more Bernie - if you are convinced the Bible says this, then the Bible is bad there. Say it to yourself and say it clear, or you're no different than those fruitcake Muslims who would harm people because they believe their scripture justifies them to.

Want to pretend I am doing this for bad reasons? Go to your local church. Ask the priest what he thinks. See whether you or I are closer to this MAINSTREAM perspective.